brenmcg said
The same chapter of Deuteronomy gives us one more member of the new 12.
Deut 33:8-10 “About Levi he said … he watched over your word and guarded your covenant. He teaches your precepts to Jacob and your law to Israel.”
Luke and Mark give this honorific title to the tax collector in their version of the calling of Matthew. Matthew the tax-collector, the first to write down the new law of the new Moses.
Gives what honorific title to the tax collector?
29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.
15 And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Robert said
Of course. Your application of your own interpretations of texts of Deuteronomy, Mark, and Matthew are not internal evidence for the author of John’s gospel. That should be pretty easy to understand.
Ok, but I’m not claiming evidence internal to John’s gospel alone can be used to determine its true author, I’m claiming evidence internal to Matthew and evidence internal to John can be used in combination to determine it.
Robert said
It is, as I’ve already explained, both his ordering of accounts as well as his expansion of the calling pericope that better explain his narrative logic. It is true that he did not need to reorder the pericopes, but he did, and the one who wants to understand why he did so should not ignore the fact that he did. Certainly there is no reason to assume that his doing so was a mistake, as you claim, and not purposeful and reasonable.
It is only your inexplicable assumption that insists that Jesus’ calling of his first disciples in Luke must be his first meeting of these disciples. It should be incredibly obvious that Luke certainly does not share this assumption of yours!
We shouldnt take it as incredibly obvious but should be open to the possibility that Luke has made a mistake. His introduction to chapter 5 “One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret the people were crowding around him and listening to the word of God. He saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets” would normally be read as an introduction to new characters – the fishermen.
“Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon.” would normally be read as Jesus previously knowing Simon.
If we take the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law as prior to the catching of fishes then Simon requires two miracles to become a follower of Jesus. It would be the only time in all four gospels where a disciple doesnt become a follower at the first meeting.
You’re still completely missing the point: you have given absolutely no good reason whatsoever for ruling out Markan priority. This is all the more problematic because it is in fact the overwhelming consensus of NT scholars.
I’m not saying anyone should rule out Markan priority I’m just giving counter-examples to it. Even if Markan priority is true we can still allow for the existence of counter-examples.
I have tried, for example ** you do not have permission to see this link **. To date, you’ve only responded with abandonment of demonstrated nonsense. Bart has also invited you to read some of the scholarship in this area. Let me know if and when you think you are ready. I will help you in whatever way I can.
I haven’t abandoned that – still claim its a good counter-example. Also here is my response to Bart’s suggestion to begin by reading Mark Goodacre.
Mark Goodacre’s Fatigue in the Synoptics “There is, nevertheless, something disturbing about a situation in which none of the standard text books find it easy to provide strong, textual grounds for believing that it was Mark and not Matthew who wrote first, particularly given the universal Patristic support for the opposite view. It is not necessary, however, to settle for this unhappy status quo. There is some data that points clearly to Marcan priority”
His first two data points are incorrect. He claims Matthew’s use of Herod the tetrarch in 14:1 and “King” in 14:9 is an example of editorial fatigue – Matthew changing Mark’s incorrect “King” to the correct “Tetrarch” but forgetting the to correct again later in 14:9.
Matthew’s use of “Tetrarch” in 14:1 is used to distinguish between this Herod and the King Herod of Matthew’s nativity – having established which Herod he’s talking about Matthew can then revert to the more colloquial “King”.
Next his claim of a serious inconsistency in Matthew 14 is wrong – the actual inconsistency is Mark. “For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison” contradicts Marks addition to Matthew of “because Herod feared John and protected him”.Goodacre concludes with “Not everyone will agree that the examples adduced here are indeed examples of editorial fatigue and some will be unhappy with the solution to the synoptic problem to which they apparently point. The advantage, however, of this kind of approach is that it can only be properly answered by adducing good counter-examples, the cumulative effect of which would be to undermine the argument for the solution to the synoptic problem that is favoured here.”
Isn’t the above son of a man verses a good counter-example to Markan priority?
Robert said
brenmcg said
No this is the wrong analogy – a better one would be a series of eye-witness statements accusing one of a pair of twins of a crime. If twin A gets ruled out all the eye-witness testimony against him naturally falls on twin B.
Until you have demonstrated that the earth is flat, or that Mark is not the first extant gospel, ie, the nearly universal consensus of NT scholars, it is a nearly perfect analogy.
You have no basis whatsoever for claiming that Markan priority or Matthean priority are “twins” when it comes to reasonable conclusions by the overwhelming consensus of New Testament scholars. Even more absurd would be your ridiculous presumption that Markan priority could or should be somehow “ruled out” of this scholarly discussion.
The basis for the synoptic problem and the name itself comes from the fact that Matthew, Mark and Luke are so similar to each other. The entire problem is deciding which comes first. If A,B,C is ruled out all the evidence then falls on what remains. I’m not saying of course that any should be ruled out a priori.
Nobody would rule out Matthean priority as an outrageous impossibility – the vast majority of scholars are convinced only that Markan priority is the more likely. The actual truth of which was written first is most likely lost to history.
Steefen said
Gives what honorific title to the tax collector?
“Levi”
The changing of a characters name in what is clearly the same story in Matthew Mark and Luke asks for an explanation; it happens nowhere else. Either the writer of Matthew has changed “Levi” to “Matthew” or the writers of Mark and Luke have changed “Matthew” to “Levi”.
I’m claiming the explanation is “Levi” was an honorary title given to Matthew (one of the twelve) by Mark and Luke signifying the fact that he was the first to write down the new law and covenant and teach it to Jacob and Israel.
brenmcg
We are told in John 21:24 that the author of the gospel is the disciple whom Jesus loved, who leaned on his bosom at the last supper. The line “we know his testimony to be true” indicates further that the identity of this disciple was known by the initial readers of the gospel. Matthew’s gospel can be used to discover this hidden identity, beginning with Mt 2:18 “A voice is heard in Ramah … Rachel weeping for her children …”.
Steefen
On the face value interpretation, Mt 2: 18 is referring to the slaughter of innocents by the Biblical Herod. You haven’t sufficiently made the connection for me.
brenmcg
In Matthew, Jesus is presented as the new Moses bringing the new covenant, and the 12 disciples are the new 12 sons of Israel who will “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes”. If the disciples are the new 12 sons then the question they themselves will have asked is “which disciple is which new son”? Matthew tells us who John along with his brother James
were claiming to be.
Matthew 2:18 “Rachel weeping for her children … ” quotes Jeremiah 31:15 and is a prefigurement of Matthew 20 where the prophesy of Jeremiah 31 will be fulfilled.
Steefen
Beginning at what verse of Matthew 20? Matthew 20 opens with a parable.
brenmcg
This is the procession and entry into Jerusalem – Jer 31:6 “let us go up to Zion”, Matthew 20:18 “we are going up to Jerusalem”.
Steefen
You’re going backward from 31:15 which is a reference to Herod’s slaying of the innocents to 9 verses prior.
Since 31:15 is about the slaughter of the innocents you probably should just start with 31: 6.
brenmcg
Ramah, just outside Jerusalem where Jeremiah gives us “Rachel weeping for her children …”, Matthew 20:20-28 gives us a mother’s request for her sons – James and John. She asks that one be allowed to sit on the right and the other the left of the lord in his kingdom.
Steefen
Very poor pesher, if not an incorrect pesher. No wonder someone gave your original post one star.
brenmcg
The brothers James and John are to be the new Joseph and Benjamin, the favorites of Israel. James the elder of the two is to be Joseph, who Gen 37:8 “will rule over his brothers”, and John is to be Benjamin, the “son of my right hand”.
Steefen
You start with Jesus as the New Moses. Then you jump to Jesus as the New Israel with the 12 disciples as his 12 children.
Maybe you should leave out the part about Jesus as the New Moses.
Tighten up your writing. Your writing is not tight.
It is asking too much to have readers consider such loose thought processes, even if there is something of value there.
Reference: Acts 5th Chapter
…36Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too perished, and all his followers were scattered.
Robert,
Luke certainly got that wrong.
How do you explain the author of Acts getting the facts about Theudas and Judas the Galilean wrong?
If you know a book that discusses this problem, let us know.
Anything in the Hermeneia series or better?
Steefen said
Beginning at what verse of Matthew 20? Matthew 20 opens with a parable.
Yes a parable about vineyards. Calling to mind Jer 31:5 “Again you will plant vineyards on the hills of Samaria; the farmers will plant them and enjoy their fruit.”
I’m not saying there’s an exact match but there’s enough there to make the connection.
Jer 31: “See, I will bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the ends of the earth. Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor; a great throng will return.”
In Matthew 20 this is just before the entry into Jerusalem, they have come from the north, crowds are following him and he’s healing the blind on the road from Jericho.
Maybe you should leave out the part about Jesus as the New Moses.
Possibly, but its an old idea. The important thing is the disciples believing they were in some sense a new “12” and the possibly they asked themselves who was who.
Robert said Of course, I’m open to the possibility that Luke made plenty of mistakes, but I don’t think he is nearly as idiotic as you propose that he was. Luke 5 would never be read as the introduction of new characters by anyone who had read (or written) the previous material. Luke’s narrative perspective is that news of Jesus had spread throughout all of Galilee and that he was praised by everyone. (4,14-15.22). News had even reached Nazareth of the things he had done in Capernaum (4,23). When he returned to Capernaum, the people were astounded at his authoritative teaching (4,31-32.36).
The news reaching Nazareth about what he had done in Capernaum (4:23) happened before any mention of Jesus being in Capernaum (4:31 “Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee”)?
This is probably a second example of Luke messing up the order – this time due to moving the “Prophet is without Honor in his home town” story back to the start.
You really think that Luke forgot that he had just written all of this when he next described Jesus getting into Simon’s boat?
Luke is editing either Mark or Matthew and both of these clearly have Jesus’s first meeting with Simon and Andrew as their tending to the fishing nets. The healing of the mother-in-law in Simon’s home takes place, for both Mark and Matthew, after this.
So Luke is changing the order of these two events for whichever writer is copying from. At no stage does Luke display an awareness of this change in order and attempt to edit his account to show that the healing of the mother-in-law is the first meeting. We would have to conclude that the introduction of Simon to Jesus is never mentioned by Jesus even though the ch 5 meeting reads like an introduction.
If Luke is editing Matthew he has moved a story from Mt ch8 to the start and added in a entirely new one. If Luke is editing Mark he has simply moved Jesus seeing Peter with the fishing nets down two stories later.
Luke’s error (if he has made one) is easier to explain when editing Matthew than when editing Mark.
Then I invite you back to the thread to try and refute my argumentation for why it fails as an attempt to understand Mark’s text or as an argument against Markan priority.
Yes I will thank you – just needed a little break from it.
No. You have not convinced Bart or me that you really understand the function of Goodacre’s fatigue argument. It is not in support of Matthean priority and it cannot be used to counter Markan priority. It is, rather, merely an attempt of his to explain why Luke supposedly did not consistently edit Matthew.
Goodacre uses it in support of Markan priority, he claims Matthew shows signs of editorial fatigue – I’m claiming his arguments are incorrect. Although he does also use it to support Luke editing Matthew.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert,So what are the most respected two or three books on Acts/Acts Commentary that cover the historical reference I mentioned and others?
I haven’t read it yet, but Craig Keener has a recent 4-volume commentary on Acts that you might want to check out. His views are relatively traditional, but he apparently does a good job of describing and engaging with less traditional views.
For the recent trend to date Acts in the early 2nd century, see also the Hermeneia commentary by Richard Pervo, as well as works by Joseph Tyson and Steve Mason.
Acts: An Exegetical Commentary by Craig S. Keener, $163.21
= = =
I don’t see anything by Steve Mason on Acts of the Apostles. I even brought up his name from the title of the book I have, “Josephus and the New Testament.”
= = =
Joseph B. Tyson (Editor): Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Paperback: $29.00
The Acts of the Apostles is not history.
Acts was long thought to be a first-century document, and its author Luke to be a disciple of Paul—thus an eyewitness or acquaintance of eyewitnesses to nascent Christianity. Acts was considered history, pure and simple. But the Acts Seminar, a decade-long collaborative project by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute, concluded that dates from the second century. That conclusion directly challenges the view of Acts as history and raises a host of new questions, addressed in this final report.
The Acts Seminar began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy.
= = =
Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible – $74.34
The Acts of the Apostles joins the Gospel of Luke with the ministry of Paul. Renowned New Testament
scholar Richard I. Pervo shows how this masterful storyteller worked his magic, drawing on first-century
literary techniques of narration and characterization. Luke’s literary skills did not prevent scribes from re-writing
his masterwork…
Steefen: This sounds like instead of Misquoting Jesus with Jesus Interrupted, this is Misquoting Luke with Luke Interrupted
Hm, no mention of the two books of Acts: 1) Luke’s narrative, 2) then the switch to Paul and the discrepancies with the letters of Paul
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert